Systems and methods for security operations maturity assessment

ABSTRACT

Systems and methods for assessing, tracking and improving security maturity of an organization are provided. Described is a system for assessing security maturity of an organization. The system receives a list of data sources located across multiple jurisdictions for the organization, collects data sources/data using custom rules from a plurality of data sources of the list of data sources, determine criticality score for each of the plurality of data sources, calculates data source coverage and asset collection coverage, determines use case coverage, and determines security maturity score using a maturity score model. The maturity score model is a logistic equation which is a function of the data source coverage, the asset collection coverage, the criticality score associated with each of the plurality of data sources, the use case coverage, asset coverage by each the plurality of data sources.

FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE

Embodiments of the present invention generally relate to securityoperations (SecOps) assessment. In particular, embodiments of thepresent invention relate to monitoring, assessing, quantifying, andimproving security operations (SecOps) maturity.

BACKGROUND OF THE DISCLOSURE

Individuals and organizations throughout the world are trying to ensurethat their network, cyberspace, and systems dependent on it areresilient to increasing attacks. Organizations are more concerned abouttheir cybersecurity than ever before as they are moving theirinfrastructure, data, and services into cloud platforms and are alsosubscribed to external services, APIs, and cloud infrastructure. In thisconnected world, Information Technology (IT) resources, which mayinclude network infrastructures, data center infrastructures, externalservices, and internal resources of an organization, may be located indifferent jurisdictions and may have to be compliant to specificrequirements of jurisdictions where segments of their IT resources arelocated. Security measures to be implemented to protect InformationTechnology (IT) infrastructures of an organization differ based on thenature of the business, size of the business, and type of internal andexternal IT resources used by the organization in addition to otherfactors.

As the organizations are implementing more and more security measures tosecure their Information Technology (IT) resources, they are not able toassess whether the security measures are adequately performing theirfunction and whether the security measures in place serve therequirements of compliance standards that apply to various segments oftheir IT environment.

Some attempts have been made in the past to solve some of the relatedproblems discussed above. An example is disclosed in the U.S. Pat. No.9,930,061 titled “System and Method for Cyber Attacks Analysis andDecision Support” (the “'061 Patent”). The '061 Patent discloses amethod for cyber-attack risk assessment, the method includingcontinuously collecting, from a networked resource, cyber-attack datahaving multiple attack methods directed at multiple objectives. Themethod also collects organizational profile data, having: assets, eachrelevant to at least one of the objectives, and defensive controls, eachconfigured to protect at least one of the assets by resisting one ormore of the attack methods. The method continuously computes anenterprise risk score and an asset risk score for each of the assets.Each asset risk score is computed with respect to the attack methodsdirected at the objectives relevant to the asset, the defensive controlsprovided to protect the asset, and a maturity score representing thecapability of the defensive controls to protect the asset. The methodalso continuously displays a dynamic rendition of the risk scores.

Another example is disclosed in the United States Patent Application No.2019/0207968 titled “Methods and Systems for Providing an IntegratedAssessment of Risk Management and Maturity for an OrganizationalCybersecurity/Privacy Program” (the “'968 Publication”). The '968Publication discloses systems and methods for computing a risk factorfor a cybersecurity/privacy program implemented by an enterprise,computing a maturity factor for the cybersecurity/privacy program, anddetermining an integrated result for the cybersecurity program based atleast in part on a combination of the risk factor and the maturityfactor. In some embodiments, computing the risk factor may includecomputing a current risk management level and a target risk managementlevel for the cybersecurity program, and computing the maturity factormay include computing a current maturity level and a target maturitylevel for the cybersecurity program. In some embodiments, the processormay be configured to perform operations that further include trackingany remediation activities based on the integrated result and monitoringany changes to the current risk management level or the current maturitylevel for the cybersecurity/review program.

Another example is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 10,592,938 titled “Systemand Methods for Vulnerability Assessment and Provisioning of RelatedServices and Products for Efficient Risk Suppression” (the “'938Patent”). The '938 Patent discloses systems and methods for cybervulnerability assessment include obtaining assessment data includinginformation pertaining to domains of cybersecurity vulnerability of anenterprise and, for each security domain, a respective domain-levelvulnerability score, identifying risk(s) relevant to the enterprisebased on domain-level vulnerability score(s), identifying recommendedproducts or services for mitigating each of the risks, and preparing agraphical user interface for selecting a portion of the recommendedproducts or services. A user may select one or more products or servicesthrough the user interface for purchase and/or deployment planning. Thedomain-level vulnerability scores may be compared to peervulnerabilities scores, target vulnerability scores, or prospectivevulnerability scores based upon the application of certain recommendedproducts or services.

Yet another example is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 8,196,207 titled“Control Automated Tool” (the “'207 Patent”). The '207 Patent disclosesa control automation tool (“CAT”) that is configured for supportingdiscrete management of controls and their corresponding metrics. Thecontrol automation tool includes a software application connected with,stored on, and executed by one or more relational, closed-loop datarepositories and computer systems. The use and maturation of controlwithin an organization depend on management of operational performanceand expenses, which the CAT assists through lean project management,effective implementation of action plans, and financial functions.Further, people resources, organizational hierarchy, and accessmanagement functions are used to support mapping of controls arranged byorganizational units and support access permissions that are consistentwith appropriate data management. The CAT also provides transparency andmeaning to control and metric status and relevant data regardingcontrols and their associated metrics and is configured for ease ofcontrol and metric management via the CAT interface.

Therefore, there is a need for a system that can assess the securitymaturity of an organization in evolving cyberspace where resourceslocated across different jurisdictions and exposure of the organizationis not limited to the managed internal network. The organizations needto know what IT resources they need to manage, where those resourcesare, know where their security posture stands in this evolving ITenvironment, what they can do to improve it, and exactly what it willtake to achieve that improvement

The present disclosure makes possible a number of the needed solutionsand makes a material and substantial improvement to the current state ofthe art for the assessment of security maturity for related purposes.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE

Systems and methods are described for assessing security maturity,identifying security gaps, and improving the security maturity level ofan organization. According to an embodiment, a system receivesonboarding inputs that include a list of data sources of anorganization, a list of jurisdictions where the organization has abusiness interest, and a list of applicable use cases to track. Thesystem collects data using custom rules from multiple data sources ofthe list of data sources, determines use case coverage, determinescriticality score for each of the data sources, calculates data sourcecoverage, calculates asset collection coverage, and determines anoverall security maturity score of the organization based on aboveparameters using a maturity score model. The maturity score model abovelisted assessment parameters and data from different data sources anddetermines the security maturity score using a logistic equation. Theequation is a function of the data source coverage, the asset collectioncoverage, the use case analytics coverage, the criticality scoreassociated with each of the plurality of data sources, and assetcoverage by each of the data sources. The system may further determinepotential compliance coverage mapping and other factors that may be usedto calculate the maturity score of the organization.

The system provides a user interface to receive onboarding inputs. Forexample, the system provides the user interface to receive a list ofdata sources of the organization, wherein the data source includesinternal and external data sources forming part of the IT infrastructureof the organization. The list of data sources includes data centerresources, internal network resources, cloud infrastructures, andsoftware as a Service (SaaS) services and serverless environments. Thesystem receives other onboarding inputs, such as a list of securityoperations assets to be collected and monitored, and a list of use casesto track against selected data source assets. Once onboarding inputs arereceived, the system may initiate the process of tracking data sources,use cases, and may quantify the security maturity of the organizationagainst all selected inputs and outputs.

The system calculates the data source coverage and asset collectioncoverage based on the data collected from data sources. The system mayestimate compliance coverage of the organization based on the mapping ofthe use cases against respective compliance frameworks.

In an embodiment, the system determines the criticality score for eachof the data sources based on different use cases covered by each of thedata sources. The criticality score of a data source is a weightedcriticality score of use cases covered by the data source. The weightedcriticality score is determined using a historically developedcriticality score matrix. In an embodiment, the system discovers one ormore use cases covered by a data source and may use a machine learningmodel to determine the criticality score of the data source.

The system may also identify data sources of the list of data sourcesand inactive use cases of the list of use cases to further projectimprovement of the security maturity score of the organization as eachof the data sources and inactive use cases becomes active. The systemmay benchmark the determined security maturity score with respect tomultiple benchmarks. One such benchmark may include a potential securitymaturity score determined considering all data sources and use cases areactive. Other benchmarks may include the security maturity score of asimilar organization, security maturity score of industry related to theorganization, security maturity score of a state, and security maturityscore of a nation.

The system may identify security gaps of the organization based onbenchmarking of the security maturity score with respect to multiplebenchmarks and may recommend security improvement measures for theorganization.

Other features of embodiments of the present disclosure will be apparentfrom accompanying drawings and detailed description that follows.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present subject matter will now be described in detail withreference to the drawings, which are provided as illustrative examplesof the subject matter so as to enable those skilled in the art topractice the subject matter. It will be noted that throughout theappended drawings, like features are identified by like referencenumerals. Notably, the FIGURES and examples are not meant to limit thescope of the present subject matter to a single embodiment, but otherembodiments are possible by way of interchange of some or all of thedescribed or illustrated elements and, further, wherein:

FIG. 1 conceptually illustrates a high-level block diagram of componentsused for assessing the security maturity of an organization inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 2 illustrates functional modules of a security maturity assessmentsystem in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary maturity score model used to determinematurity score of an organization in accordance with an embodiment ofthe present disclosure.

FIG. 3B illustrates example maturity scores over a period of time for acustomer measured in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure.

FIG. 4 illustrates an example block diagram of an input receiving modulein accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 5A illustrates an example list of data sources used for collectingdata in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 5B illustrates an example recommended list of data sources inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 5C illustrates an example list of data sources having a lowcriticality score in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure.

FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the maturity score/scoring compartmentsused in assessing the maturity of an organization in accordance with anembodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 7 illustrates an example schema used to assess threat detectioncapability of an organization based on given data sources in accordancewith an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 8 is an example of maturity scores for individual attributes inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 9 is an example dashboard illustrating security maturity overviewof an organization in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure.

FIG. 10 is an example dashboard illustrating maturity score of theorganization against each of the individual attributes in accordancewith an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 11A is a flow diagram illustrating assessment of security maturityin accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 11B is a flow diagram illustrating benchmarking of securitymaturity score and recommending security improvement measures inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 12 is an example dashboard illustrating maturity score of theorganization and maturity score against each of the individualattributes in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.

FIG. 13 illustrates a list of industries against which one can benchmarktheir security operations maturity in accordance with an embodiment ofthe present disclosure.

FIG. 14 illustrates an example scoring engine compartments used toassess security maturity in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure.

FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary user interface that allowscustomization of data sources in accordance with an embodiment of thepresent disclosure.

FIG. 16 illustrates an exemplary computer system in which or with whichembodiments of the present invention may be utilized.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

The detailed description set forth below in connection with the appendeddrawings is intended as a description of exemplary embodiments in whichthe presently disclosed process can be practiced. The term “exemplary”used throughout this description means “serving as an example, instance,or illustration,” and should not necessarily be construed as preferredor advantageous over other embodiments. The detailed descriptionincludes specific details for providing a thorough understanding of thepresently disclosed method and system. However, it will be apparent tothose skilled in the art that the presently disclosed process may bepracticed without these specific details. In some instances, well-knownstructures and devices are shown in block diagram form in order to avoidobscuring the concepts of the presently disclosed method and system.

Systems and methods for assessing security maturity, identifyingsecurity gaps, and improving the security maturity level of anorganization are described. Described are systems and methods formonitoring, assessing, and improving the security maturity of anorganization. In an embodiment, a system receives various inputs relatedto an organization's IT infrastructure, determines active and datasources for collecting data, collects data from data sources, determinescoverage of these data sources, determines use cases covered by activesecurity systems, maps those use cases with applicable complianceframeworks and computes a security maturity score of the organizationusing a logistic equation which is a function of above parameters.

The system may provide live security maturity score based on datacollected from data sources and may also provide a projected securitymaturity score considering all available data source and securitysystems of the organization are active. The system can further benchmarkthe computed security maturity score with respect to the projectedsecurity maturity score and other industry benchmarks.

Embodiments of the present invention include various steps, which willbe described below. The steps may be performed by hardware components ormay be embodied in machine-executable instructions, which may be used tocause a general-purpose or special-purpose processor programmed with theinstructions to perform the steps. Alternatively, steps may be performedby a combination of hardware, software, firmware and human operators.

Embodiments of the present invention may be provided as a computerprogram product, which may include a machine-readable storage mediumtangibly embodying thereon instructions, which may be used to program acomputer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process. Themachine-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, fixed (hard)drives, magnetic tape, floppy diskettes, optical disks, compact discread-only memories (CD-ROMs), and magneto-optical disks, semiconductormemories, such as ROMs, PROMs, random access memories (RAMs),programmable read-only memories (PROMs), erasable PROMs (EPROMs),electrically erasable PROMs (EEPROMs), flash memory, magnetic or opticalcards, or other types of media/machine-readable medium suitable forstoring electronic instructions (e.g., computer programming code, suchas software or firmware).

Various methods described herein may be practiced by combining one ormore machine-readable storage media containing the code according to thepresent invention with appropriate standard computer hardware to executethe code contained therein. An apparatus for practicing variousembodiments of the present invention may involve one or more computers(or one or more processors within the single computer) and storagesystems containing or having network access to computer program(s) codedin accordance with various methods described herein, and the methodsteps of the invention could be accomplished by modules, routines,subroutines, or subparts of a computer program product.

The terms “connected” or “coupled”, and related terms are used in anoperational sense and are not necessarily limited to a direct connectionor coupling. Thus, for example, two devices may be coupled directly, orvia one or more intermediary media or devices. As another example,devices may be coupled in such a way that information can be passedthere between, while not sharing any physical connection with oneanother. Based on the disclosure provided herein, one of ordinary skillin the art will appreciate a variety of ways in which connection orcoupling exists in accordance with the aforementioned definition.

If the specification states a component or feature “may”, “can”,“could”, or “might” be included or have a characteristic, thatparticular component or feature is not required to be included or havethe characteristic.

As used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow,the meaning of “a,” “an,” and “the” includes plural reference unless thecontext clearly dictates otherwise. Also, as used in the descriptionherein, the meaning of “in” includes “in” and “on” unless the contextclearly dictates otherwise.

The phrases “in an embodiment,” “according to one embodiment,” and thelike generally mean the particular feature, structure, or characteristicfollowing the phrase is included in at least one embodiment of thepresent disclosure and may be included in more than one embodiment ofthe present disclosure. Importantly, such phrases do not necessarilyrefer to the same embodiment.

As used herein, a “network security appliance” or a “network securitydevice” generally refers to a device or appliance in virtual or physicalform that is operable to perform one or more security functions. Somenetwork security devices may be implemented as general-purpose computersor servers with appropriate software operable to perform the one or moresecurity functions. Other network security devices may also includecustom hardware (e.g., one or more custom Application SpecificIntegrated Circuits (ASICs)). A network security device is typicallyassociated with a particular network (e.g., a private enterprisenetwork) on behalf of which it provides one or more security functions.The network security device may reside within the particular networkthat it is protecting, or network security may be provided as a servicewith the network security device residing in the cloud. Non-limitingexamples of security functions include authentication, next-generationfirewall protection, antivirus scanning, content filtering, data privacyprotection, web filtering, network traffic inspection (e.g., securesockets layer (SSL) or Transport Layer Security (TLS) inspection),intrusion prevention, intrusion detection, denial of service attack(DoS) detection and mitigation, encryption (e.g., Internet ProtocolSecure (IPSec), TLS, SSL), application control, Voice over InternetProtocol (VoIP) support, Virtual Private Networking (VPN), data leakprevention (DLP), antispam, antispyware, logging, reputation-basedprotections, event correlation, network access control, vulnerabilitymanagement, and the like. Such security functions may be deployedindividually as part of a point solution or in various combinations inthe form of a unified threat management (UTM) solution. Non-limitingexamples of network security appliances/devices include networkgateways, VPN appliances/gateways, UTM appliances, messaging securityappliances, database security and/or compliance appliances, webapplication firewall appliances, application acceleration appliances,server load balancing appliances, vulnerability management appliances,configuration, provisioning, update and/or management appliances,logging, analyzing and/or reporting appliances, bypass appliances,Domain Name Server (DNS) appliances, wireless security appliances, andDoS attack detection appliances.

As used herein a “network resource” generally refers to various forms ofdata, information, services, applications and/or hardware devices thatmay be accessed via a network (e.g., the Internet). Non-limitingexamples of network resources include web applications, cloud-basedservices, networked devices and/or associated applications (e.g., userinterface applications), and network security devices and/or associatedapplications (e.g., user interface applications). Exemplary embodimentswill now be described more fully hereinafter with reference to theaccompanying drawings, in which exemplary embodiments are shown. Thisinvention may, however, be embodied in many different forms and shouldnot be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Theseembodiments are provided so that this invention will be thorough andcomplete and will fully convey the scope of the invention to those ofordinary skill in the art. Moreover, all statements herein recitingembodiments of the invention, as well as specific examples thereof, areintended to encompass both structural and functional equivalentsthereof. Additionally, it is intended that such equivalents include bothcurrently known equivalents as well as equivalents developed in thefuture (i.e., any elements developed that perform the same function,regardless of structure).

Thus, for example, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill inthe art that the diagrams, schematics, illustrations, and the likerepresent conceptual views or processes illustrating systems and methodsembodying this invention. The functions of the various elements shown inthe figures may be provided through the use of dedicated hardware aswell as hardware capable of executing associated software. Similarly,any switches shown in the figures are conceptual only. Their functionmay be carried out through the operation of program logic, throughdedicated logic, through the interaction of program control anddedicated logic, or even manually, the particular technique beingselectable by the entity implementing this invention. Those of ordinaryskill in the art further understand that the exemplary hardware,software, processes, methods, and/or operating systems described hereinare for illustrative purposes and, thus, are not intended to be limitedto any particular name.

FIG. 1 conceptually illustrates a high-level block diagram of componentsused for assessing security maturity of an organization in accordancewith an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 1, asecurity maturity assessment system 104 may receive data from multipledata sources through the collection and analysis platform 106. Forexample, the data sources may include a data source 102 a that providesdata from on-premise devices, data sources 102 b that provide data fromcloud infrastructure used by the organization, data sources 102 c thatprovides data from SaaS services used by the organization, and datasources 102 n that provide data from other networked devices of theorganization. Each of the data sources 102 a-n may receive data frommultiple underneath connected devices and share the data with thesecurity maturity assessment system 104.

The platform 106 collects data from different data sources 120 a-n usingwireless and wired connections, facilitate the transfer of data to thesecurity maturity access system 104. The system 104 may quantify, track,and provide visibility and capability of security systems or services ofthe organization. System 104 may determine a maturity score of theorganization and quantify it in a predefined range. For example, thesystem may provide a score in the range of 0-10, wherein 10 indicatesthe best possible security maturity of any organization.

In some embodiments, data sources 102 a-n may include a firewall, anEndpoint Detection & Response (EDR) system, an Antivirus (AV), a webserver, a Web Application Firewall (WAF), an email security system, aWindows domain controller, an authentication system, a remote accesscontrol system, a web proxy, a cloud service API, a cloudinfrastructure, a cloud security system, a Windows member server, aLinux server security system, an active directory infrastructure, anIntrusion Detection System (IDS), an Intrusion Prevention System (IPS),a privileged account management system, a DNS server, a Data LossPrevention (DLP) system, a network infrastructure, a Host BasedIntrusion Detection System (HIDS), a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol(DHCP) server, a configuration management tool, a database access andactivity logging system, a vulnerability management tool, an assetidentity data source, a workstation operating system, an email serverand other security systems and networked devices.

System 104 may allow defining custom rules and policies to collect datafrom data sources 102 a-n. These custom rules and policies may bedefined to optimize the collection of relevant data data. System 104 maysupport the collection of data from data sources of different vendors.Custom rules, policies, and logics may be defined for collecting datafrom data sources of different vendors using different technologystacks.

Table-1 illustrates an example list of technology stacks, products, andvendors for which custom rules for data collection may be defined in thespirit of representing the data type categories/sources and exampletechnologies/products.

TABLE 1 Data sources and example technology stacks supported by securitymaturity assessment systems. Data Source Example Technologies FirewallPalo Alto Networks, Checkpoint, Fortinet Endpoint Detection & ResponseCrowdstrike, Carbon Black Respond, (EDR) Cylance, SentinelOne Anti-Virus(AV) McAfee, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP), Carbon Black Defense,McAfee ePO Web Server/WAF Data Incapsula (WAF), W3C Web Logs,Access-Combined Web Logs, Microsoft IIS EMail Security Mimecast,Proofpoint, IronPort Windows Domain Controllers Windows Security Logs,Windows (OS - Windows) Application Logs, Windows System Logs, PowerShellLogs, AD Authentication Multi-Factor Authentication Okta, Duo, RSASecurID (MFA) Remote Access Cisco ASA (AnyConnect), Citrix, RDP WebProxy Zscaler, Bluecoat, Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) Cloud MicrosoftAzure, Microsoft O365, Google Cloud Platform (GCP), Amazon Web Services(AWS), Box Cloud Security sift, redlock Windows Member Servers (OS -Windows Security Logs, Windows Windows) Application Logs, Windows SystemLogs, PowerShell Logs, Local Authentication Linux Server Secure & securelogs, audited logs Audited Logs (OS - Linux) Active DirectoryInfrastructure Operational-Site-Health-Replication Intrusion DetectionSystems Snort, Bro, Next Generation Firewall (IDS) & IntrusionPrevention (NGFW) Systems (IPS) Privileged Account Management CyberArkDNS Server Windows DNS Server, Infoblox, Cisco Umbrella Data LossPrevention (DLP) Netskope, Symantec DLP Network Infrastructure Cisco,Juniper, Meraki, NetScaler Host Based Intrusion Detection OSSEC, McAfeeHIDS System (HIDS) DHCP Server Windows DHCP Server ConfigurationManagement Puppet, Windows SCOM, Windows Tools SCCM, Chef, AnsibleDatabase Access & Activity Microsoft C2 Auditing Logs VulnerabilityManagement Tools Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 Asset & Identity Data LDAP,Active Directory Objects Workstation Operating System Windows SecurityLogs, Windows (OS) Logs Application Logs, Windows System Logs,PowerShell Logs Email Server Microsoft Exchange

In some embodiments, data sources may be categorized into “High” valuedata sources, “Medium” value data sources, and “Low” value data sourcesand may be assigned separately. High-value data sources may includeplatforms that directly address the confidentiality, integrity, oravailability of a customer's operational environment. For example,High-value data sources may include firewalls, email security, proxy,and authentication devices. Medium and Low value data sources aretypically supplemental sources that can provide further enrichmentwithin the customer's environment. For example, Medium value datasources may include a vulnerability management system, LDAP server, andConfiguration Management integration system.

In some embodiments, use cases may be categorized in the form ofcriticalities such as “High” use cases, “Medium” use cases and “Low” usecases. Use case categorization may be used to determine the criticalityof such use cases. Use cases marked as high may include securityfeatures related to the detection of cyber threats. Use cases marked as“Medium” may relate to security features associated with advanceddetection and investigation. Use cases marked as “Low” may relate tosecurity features associated with data correlation and analytics fortaking corrective measures, automated blocking and tackling, as well aslower value findings.

In an embodiment, system 104 may determine the score for each individualsegment of IT infrastructure of the organization. For example, system104 may determine the data center maturity score, cloud service providermaturity score, software as a Service (SaaS) maturity score. As one mayappreciate, system 104 may assess security maturity of cloudinfrastructures and cloud services as well, in addition to securitymaturity assessment of internal network and on-premises devices. System104 may perform data source maturity assessment 112, asset collectionmaturity assessment 114, use-case maturity assessment 116, andcompliance maturity assessment 118 for determining an individual scorefor coverage maturity, data source maturity, use case maturity, andcompliance maturity, respectively, at a granular level. System 104 maydetermine the overall maturity score of the organization based onfactorized collective scores of the above parameters.

The security maturity assessment system 104 may perform data sourcematurity assessment 112 to assess data source coverage percentage, whichis the percentage score of IT resources of the organization from wheredata can be collected out of total IT resources of the organization. Forexample, if there are a total 100 IT resources of the organization anddata can be collected from only 80 IT resources, the coverage percentagewould be 80. As one may appreciate, organizations should aim to getmaximum visibility and be able to gather, identify, and perform advanceddata collection from all their IT resources. The higher the data sourcecoverage, the higher the maturity score of the organization. Collectionsof data enable the model to assess whether the security systems areworking, what threats are being detected, what preventive actions arebeing taken by respective security systems and may also assist inidentifying security gaps. Similarly, system 104 may perform assetcollection coverage maturity assessment 114 to assess where IT resourcesof the organization are located across the globe and assess from whichlocations data can be collected out of all existing locations. The goalis to increase data collection and coverage from different data sourcesfor better accuracy.

In an embodiment, system 104 may enable self-assessment of data sourcematurity and asset collection coverage maturity through a customeronboarding module. The customer onboarding module may collect datarelated to an organization through an interactive user interface. In anembodiment, the customer onboarding module may collect required dataassociated with an organization if permissions are granted to discoverIT infrastructure of the organization.

System 104 may perform use case maturity assessment 116 to determinedifferent security use cases covered by different security systems ofthe organization. The use cases are logical grouping of characteristicsor rules that define or identify a specific threat or security scenario.The use case maturity assessment 116 provides an indication of howprepared the organization is for different types of cyber threats. Usecase maturity assessment 116 may provide an indication of use casecoverage percentage based on available use cases covered by the datasources. System 104 may refer to a content library or historicalknowledge database 108 that lists all possible use cases to determinerequired use cases for an organization and determine much of thoserequired use cases are covered by the data sources.

System 104 may refer to historical knowledge database 108 to determinethe criticality of each of the data sources. Historical knowledgedatabase 108 may maintain a criticality score matrix 112, which mayinclude all possible use cases that a data source may cover and a usecase criticality score against each of the use cases. The use casecriticality score may be assigned manually based on historicalknowledge. In an embodiment, the use case criticality score may beassigned by a machine learning model based on the nature of the businessof the organization and the impact of different security coverageprovided by a use case. The machine learning model may assign a use casecriticality score and can further provide a criticality score for eachof the data sources. System 104 may determine the criticality score of adata source based on use cases covered by the data source. Thecriticality score to a data source may be assigned as 3 to indicate veryhigh criticality, 2 to indicate high criticality, 1 to indicate mediumcriticality, and 0 to indicate low criticality. To maximize the maturityscore, the organization should ensure data sources with criticalityscores of 3 and 2 are active and have the capability to share data. Someof the factors that can be used to determine the criticality score ofdata source may include determination of whether the data sourcecontains data for external authentication capabilities, whether thetraffic through the data source is inbound traffic, outbound traffic, orinternal traffic, whether the data source contains potential securitythreat reports, whether the data source contains potential Indication ofCompromise (IoC) data, and whether the data source and use cases coveredby it assist in finding advance threats (e.g., kerberoasting, lateralmovement, live off the land, etc.).

Security maturity assessment system 104 may perform compliance maturityassessment to determine a compliance score of the organization againstdifferent compliance frameworks 110. Applicable compliance framework(s)for an organization may differ depending on the location of its ITresources, size of the organization, nature of the business, type ofdata that it processes, and other such factors. System 104 may find oneor more applicable compliance requirements and suitable complianceframeworks against which the compliance maturity assessment 118 may beperformed. Example compliance frameworks may include but are not limitedto MITRE ATT&CK, Center for Internet (CIS) Benchmark, LockheedKillchain, and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)Cyber Security Framework (CSF). System 104 may determine compliancecoverage based on active use cases.

System 104 may use respective maturity scores from data source maturityassessment 112, asset collection coverage maturity assessment 114, usecase maturity assessment 116, and compliance maturity assessment 118 todetermine an overall security maturity score of the organization.

FIG. 2 illustrates functional modules of a security maturity assessmentsystem in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.Security maturity assessment system 104 is also referred to as thesecurity maturity assessment system 200 throughout this document forease of explanation. System 200 may help organizations in their effortto improve their security monitoring, alerting & respondingcapabilities. System 200 model consists of tiers that detail therequired data sources and associated use cases that organizations shouldmonitor. Each of the use cases may be mapped to a phase of the maturitymodel to simplify maturity assessments for already onboardedorganizations and new customer onboarding project plans. System 200 mayprovide valuable insight into organizational security posture throughbenchmarking against their own operations and industry benchmarks.System 200 may help cybersecurity leaders with quantitative data thatdemonstrate their security operation progress.

Security maturity assessment system 200 includes input receiving module202 configured to receive onboarding inputs, including a list of datasources of an organization, a list of jurisdictions where theorganization has a business interest, and a list of use cases to track.System 200 may include data collection module 204 configured to collectdata using custom rules from a plurality of data sources of the list ofdata sources, a use case coverage determination module 206 configured todetermine use case coverage by the plurality of data sources byreferring to a content library, a criticality score determination module208 configured to determine a criticality score for each data source ofthe plurality of data sources based on one or more use cases covered byrespective data source, data source coverage calculation module 210configured to calculate data source coverage based on the data receivedand the list of data sources, an asset collection coverage determinationmodule 212 configured to determine asset collection coverage based onthe data received and the list of data sources, and security maturitydetermination module 214 configured to determine a security maturityscore of the organization using a maturity score model. The maturityscore model may be a function of the data source coverage, the assetcollection coverage, the criticality score associated with each of theplurality of data sources, the compliance coverage, asset coverage byeach the plurality of data sources, and use case coverage.

In an embodiment, security maturity assessment system 200 may allow acustomer, upon authentication, to access system 200 through aweb-application, a stand-alone on-premise system, or through a dedicatedapplication. In an embodiment, the input receiving module 202 mayreceive a list of IT resources of an organization, asset collectionpresence, and use case details. The input receiving module 202, alsoreferred interchangeably as a customer onboarding module may provide aninteractive user interface to the customer to receive a list of ITresources of an organization. As one may appreciate, these IT resourcesof the organization may be located across different jurisdictions. Inputreceiving module 202 may present a form to be filled with onboardinginputs about the organization for which maturity assessment needs to beperformed. An organization may access, once authenticated, a customeronboarding portal through an interactive user interface. The inputreceiving module 202 may request through an onboarding portal basicdetails of an organization, such as organization name, parentorganization name, username, email address, the contact information of aperson concerned, business unit details, industry details, competitors'details, list of subsidiaries, annual revenue, etc. The input receivingmodule 202 may receive industry driven compliance requirements of theorganization and one or more compliance drivers for the organizationbased on business-driven regulatory requirements. Some of these customerdetails may not be mandatory and can be skipped. The input receivingmodule 202 may also receive a list of continents, regions, countries,and states where IT resources of the organization may be located orwhere the organization may have a business interest.

In an embodiment, the input receiving module 202 may also receivecoverage details such as a list of data sources, number of domaincontrollers, details about cloud providers, details of endpoint securityproviders, number of endpoints, location of data centers and criticalresources, etc. from customers. The input receiving module 202 maydisplay customer detail completeness score in percentage to indicatemissing details, which can always be updated by the customer. In anembodiment, the input receiving module 202 may determine missing detailsabout the organization based on the partially filled customer details.For example, if the size of the organization and nature of business isknown, input receiving module 202 may determine the compliancerequirements of the organization.

The input receiving module 202 may also retrieve required onboardinginputs related to an organization automatically if permission is grantedby the IT resource manager to discover IT resources if the organization.The input receiving module 202 may analyze network traffic of theorganization and discover available IT resources of the organization.Input receiving module 202 may present the discovered IT resources ofthe organization for correction if required. Once the onboarding detailsof the organization is in place, system 200 may perform a securitymaturity assessment of the organization.

Data collection module 204 may collect data from data sources from thelist of data sources. As one may appreciate, from the list of datasources, provided or discovered by the input receiving module 202, theremay be some active (currently collected) data sources and some inactive(not currently collected, planned) data sources. Data sources are thosethat are not operational due to some technical issue or those from whichdata can't be collected. Data collection module 204 may actively collectdata from the data sources. In an embodiment, each of the data sourcesmay be configured to share data almost in real-time with data collectionmodule 204. Data collection module 204 may provide custom rules andpolicies to receive data in order to optimize collection. Datacollection module 204 may be configured to collect data only when thedefined set of rules or policies are met.

Use case coverage determination module 206 of system 200 provides apercentage score of active use cases against a list of use casesrecommended and stored in a content library for the organization.

Criticality score determination module 208 of system 200 may determinethe criticality score for each of the data sources. Criticality scoredetermination module 208 may explore one or more use cases covered by adata source, refer to a criticality score matrix that maintains thecriticality score for each use case to determine the criticality scoreassociated with each of the use cases and determine criticality score ofthe data source. The criticality score of the data source may be theweighted average of the criticality score of each of the individual usecases covered by the data source. The criticality score matrix maintainsthe criticality score against known use cases based on historicalknowledge. In an embodiment, the criticality score for a new use casemay be estimated based on the matching of the new use case with anexisting use case. The matching use case may depend on the type ofsecurity coverage provided by use cases. In an embodiment, criticalityscore determination module 206 may use a machine learning model todetermine the criticality score of a new use case or a data source basedon historical learning. The criticality score to a use case may beassigned as 3 to indicate very high criticality, 2 to indicate highcriticality, 1 to indicate medium criticality, and 0 to indicate lowcriticality. To maximize the maturity score, the organization shouldensure use cases with criticality scores of High and Medium are activeand have the capability to share data. Some of the factors that can beused to determine the criticality score of use cases and criticalityscore of data sources may include the determination of whether the datasource contains data for external authentication capabilities, whetherthe traffic is inbound traffic, outbound traffic, or internal traffic,whether use case contains potential security threat reports, whether theuse contains potential Indication of Compromise (IoC) data, and whetherthe use case assists in finding advance threats (e.g., kerberoasting,lateral movement, live off the land, etc.). As mentioned earlier, thecriticality score of the data source may be determined based on theweighted average of the criticality score of use cases covered by thedata source.

Data source coverage maturity calculation module 210 of system 200 maycalculate data source coverage based on the data received and the listof data sources to assess percentage coverage of data collection out ofall existing IT resources of the organization. System 200 should be ableto collect data from maximum IT resources for better security maturityscore. Data sources should be able to monitor all IT resources of theorganization and provide data to data collection module 204. Data sourcecoverage calculation module 208 may determine out of all existing datasources how many are data sources and how many are data sources. Module210 may calculate the percentage score of data sources from which datacollection module 204 is able to collect data over total data sources ofthe organization. As one may appreciate, each data source may cover oneor more IT resources of the organizations and may provide data on behalfof one or more IT resources.

Asset collection coverage determination module 212 may determine assetcollection coverage based on the data received and the list of datasources. Module 212 evaluates out of all data sources located acrossdifferent jurisdictions from how many jurisdictions data sourcecollection module 204 is able to collect the data. For a better maturityscore, for each jurisdiction, depending on the residing IT resources ineach jurisdiction, system 200 should be able to collect data fromrespective data sources. To ensure IT resources of the organization aresecure in each jurisdiction. It is essential that all the securitysystems responsible for the security of respective jurisdictions areactive and provide data for further analysis. Asset collection coveragedetermination module 210 may provide a percentage of asset collectioncoverage by the data sources.

Security maturity determination module 214 may determine the overallsecurity maturity of the organization using a security maturity model.In an embodiment, the security maturity model may be a logisticequation, which is a function of the data source coverage, the assetcollection coverage, the use case coverage, the criticality scoreassociated with each of the plurality of data sources, and assetcoverage by each the plurality of data sources. In an embodiment, thematurity model may receive data associated with data source coverage,asset collection coverage, use case coverage, and weighted average ofcollection asset coverage per data source by all data sources andquantify the security maturity of the organization in a range of 0-10,wherein security maturity score-10 is the best possible score.

System 200 may further include compliance coverage estimation module 216configured to estimate compliance coverage of the organization based onactual compliance by IT resources of the organization located in each ofthe plurality of jurisdictions against respective compliance frameworks.Compliance coverage estimation module 216 may map active use casesagainst compliance requirements and determine the compliance coverageaccordingly. Compliance coverage estimation module 216 may estimatecompliance coverage of the organization based on actual compliance by ITresources of the organization located in each of the plurality ofjurisdictions against respective compliance frameworks. In an embodimentcompliance coverage estimation module 212 can determine out of allapplication use cases recommended under a specific compliance frameworkhow many use cases are implemented by the organization and are active.The compliance coverage estimation module 216 may estimate a compliancescore based on the mapping of the active use cases with complianceframeworks. Example compliance frameworks include MITRE ATT&CK, CISbenchmark, Lockheed Killchain, and NIST CSF.

System 200 may further include a benchmarking module configured tobenchmark the security maturity score with respect to one or morebenchmarks. The one or more benchmark may include a potential securitymaturity score determined using the maturity score model, wherein thepotential security maturity score is determined considering all of theplurality of data sources are data sources. In an embodiment, the one ormore benchmarks may include the security maturity score of a similarorganization or security maturity score of industry related to theorganization.

System 200 may further include security gap identification module 218configured to identify one or more security gaps based on thebenchmarking and compliance mapping. Security gap identification module218 may receive input from the mapping of use cases against thecompliance framework and identify missing use cases. Similarly, thesecurity gap identification module 218 may receive input from thebenchmarking module, which provides a comparison of the securitymaturity score against one or more benchmarks. If the determinedsecurity maturity score of the organization is less than the comparedbenchmark, module 218 may determine missing use cases not covered by theorganization. System 200 may further include recommendation module 220configured to provide recommendations for security maturity improvementbased on input received from the security gap identification module 218.The missing use cases identified by module 218 may be provided as arecommendation for the organization, as it may help improve the overallsecurity maturity of the organization.

FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary maturity score model used to determinethe maturity score of an organization in accordance with an embodimentof the present disclosure. As illustrated in FIG. 3, security maturitymodel 302 may receive various input variables, such as details of fromdifferent business units/Op-Co 304 of an organization, data sourcecoverage 306, asset collection coverage 308, asset coverage per datasource 310, and use case coverage 312. Security maturity model 302 mayperform logistic calculation 314 based on values of the input variables(which may in terms of % values) and provide output maturity score 316in range (e.g., 0-10, 0-100, etc. In an embodiment, where the range is0-10, the maturity score-10 indicates the best possible score.Similarly, if the range is between 0-100, the maturity score-100indicates the best possible score. The score may be represented ininteger form or decimal values for more accurate representation. In anembodiment, the score can also be presented in the form of grades (e.g.,A++, A+, A, B++, B+, etc.) As one may appreciate, to represent maturityscore, any define scale can be used. To determine use case coverage,content library 318 may be referred. Content library 318 may contain acompiled list of use cases recommended under different complianceframeworks, such as MITRE ATT&CK 320, NIST CSF 322, CIS Framework 324,and Lockheed Kill Chain 326.

In an embodiment, metadata enrichment and augmentation module 328 maywork as an abstraction layer for pushing and pushing data from contentlibrary 318 and storing data collected from different sources. Themetadata enrichment and augmentation module 328 may collect metadata,augment the metadata, and add additional context in input variablemapping.

FIG. 3B illustrates example maturity scores over a period of time for acustomer measured in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure. The security maturity assessment system uses a logisticequation like the one above to determine the overall maturity score. Asshown in FIG. 3B, the security operations maturity of organizationincreases as their visibility into data sources increases. The curve 352represents the increasing operations maturity of the organization. Anorganization that has no visibility into its data, getting started, hasa huge value by additional data sources. Once on the maturity path toincrease, the organizations increase their visibility into data sources,there becomes a break in the return on investment and improvement incollection-visibility-detection-analysis. As an obvious result, thereturn of adding more data sources diminished at higher levels ofsecurity maturity. As one may appreciate, it is more difficult to moveup the curve with just a few pieces of information, but as theorganization grows in maturity, it moves up the curve, and incrementalgains are harder to achieve at higher levels of maturity. FIG. 3B,represents the best potential curve to model out the ease ofimplementation vs. the gains in security that happen along the maturitycurve. As one appreciates, for better assessment for the securitymaturity of an organization, it is important to capture comprehensivedetails about IT resources of the organization.

FIG. 4 illustrates an example block diagram of an input receiving modulein accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The inputreceiving module 202 is also referred to as the customer onboardingmodule 412 here for simplicity of explanation. The input receivingmodule 202 or customer onboarding module 412 may provide customer 402Link/URL 404 through which customer 402 may access customer portal 406.Customer Portal 406 may maintain updated details about the customer andits IT resources. Customer onboarding module 412 may input details suchas asset collection coverage 414, compliance coverage 414, data sourcecoverage 418, and potential use case analytics 420. Customer onboardingmodule 412 may provide asset collection coverage 414, such ascontinents, regions, and countries where the customer may have its ITresources and business interest. Customer onboarding module 412 mayprovide a list of potential data sources 412, which may include datacenter 426, SaaS 428, and Cloud Service Provider (CSP) 430 of thecustomer. Customer onboarding module 412 may list the number of assetscovered by each selected data source(s). Based on the inputs receivedthrough customer onboarding module 412, potent use case analytics 420may be performed, and a weighted use case score may be determined.Customer onboarding module 412 may receive a list of IT resources anddata sources, wherein the criticality level of each IT resource, usecase, and data source may be different.

FIG. 5A illustrates an example list of data sources used for collectingdata in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Eachdata source may provide data from one or more security systems coveringone or more use cases. Based on use cases covered by each of the datasources criticality score may be assigned for each data source. As shownin FIG. 5A, a data source may include a firewall, EDR, AV, web server,WAF data source, Email security system, Windows Domain controller, MFAserver, remote access control system, web-proxy, cloud infrastructure,cloud service, cloud security, Windows member server, Linux serversecurity and audio log device, active directory infrastructure, IDS,IPS, and privileged account management system and these data sources maybe active for any mature organization of significant size. Criticalityfor these data sources may be high, which may be represented as 1 innumerical terms. FIG. 5B illustrates an example recommended list of datasources in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.Other data sources with lower criticality score may also be recommendedby the system to be active. FIG. 5C illustrates an example list of datasources having a low criticality score in accordance with an embodimentof the present disclosure. Other data sources with lower criticalityscore may also be recommended by the system to be active.

FIG. 6 illustrates an example maturity score compartments used inassessing maturity of an organization in accordance with an embodimentof the present disclosure. Maturity scoring module 604 may includedifferent functional compartments, such as data source compartment 606,may contain and support calculations and scoring of a geographical assetcollection compartment 608, geographic asset collection coverage mappingcompartment 610, and compliance mapping compartment 612 may be able toperform specific evaluations related to data source, geographic assetcollection, compliance mapping, and use case coverage respectively.Maturity scoring module 604, also referred to as the security maturitydetermination module, may receive potential customer inputs 602 and mayperform assigned functions related to respective compartments. Forexample, data source compartment 606 may enable the system to collectdata from different data sources or data points where security threatscan be best detected over time. In an embodiment, the asset collectioncompartment 608 may receive regional threat intelligence based ongeographical coverage input provided by the customer and may assess thesecurity preparedness based on that regional threat intelligence todetermine geographical coverage. Compliance compartment 610 may check ifthe security measures in place meet the compliance mandates of anorganization. Compliance compartment 610 may enable mandate checks aswell as may programmatically guide the organization to improve itssecurity measures to gain better security maturity. Coverage compartment612 enables a holistic view of the visibility of IT resources of theorganization and highlights business risks if any essential coverage ismissing.

The security maturity scoring model may help organizations proactivelydrive security operation maturity through quantitative analysis andindustry benchmarking.

FIG. 7 an example schema outlining how the security maturity scoringmodule content maps to industry frameworks and customer data inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Schema 700 mayallow reporting on threat detection capability of the organization basedon the given data from different data sources. As shown in FIG. 7, a“dw_enrichment” table may be used when there are matches to detectionrules. The “dw_enrichment” table maps a given detection rule (use case)to industry frameworks, threat categories or use cases, and differentdata types. Table “vsoc_id” may provide the rule name, description, andany other data enrichment that needs to be tied to specific detectionrules. Table “cis_controls” enriches any mappings to the CIS Top 20Benchmarks. In an example implementation, table “kill_chain” enrichesany mappings to the Cyber Kill Chain, table “mitre_tactic” enriches anymappings to the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics, table “mitre_technique” enrichesany mappings to the MITRE ATT&CK Techniques, table “dw_category enrichesany mappings to different use cases or threat category, and table“data_type” defines normalized data types/categories that may be mappedto the data type of MITRE Tactics. Table “dw_sourcetype” may be used tomap vendor or customer data sources to predefined data types. The table“dw_sourcetype” may also map a given data source to the expected SplunkData Model, and table “cim_dm” may define any mappings to Splunk DataModels. Similarly, a schema may be used to map threats to differentindustry frameworks.

FIG. 8 is an example of maturity scores for individual attributes inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Interface 800shows a breakdown of compartment score for an organization as itpertains to data collection, use case coverage, and asset coveragescoring. As shown in FIG. 8, the data collection score (could be) 3.1,use cases maturity score maybe 10.0, and coverage maturity maybe 10.0based on the assessment performed on data sources. As illustrated, ifinactive security systems, data sources, and use cases are activated,the organization may achieve an ideal security maturity score. The belowscore breakdown illustrates the.

FIG. 9 is an example dashboard illustrating a security maturity overviewof an organization in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure. The dashboard, as illustrated in FIG. 9 may provide a quickoverview of the security preparedness of the organization. It mayrepresent metrics such as active data source coverage, use casecoverage, and how much the asset collection coverage is, and finally,what is the overall maturity score of the organization over the periodof time. FIG. 10 is an example dashboard illustrating the maturity scoreof the organization against each of the individual attributes inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. It illustratesa separate score for each assessment parameter. For example, FIG. 10illustrates the maturity score for “high” value data sources, maturityscore for “medium” value data sources, maturity score for “low” valuedata sources; includes maturity score for “high” value use-cases,maturity score for “medium” value use-cases and maturity score for “low”value use-cases. Similarly, for each parameter maturity score may bedisplayed independently.

FIG. 11A is a flow diagram illustrating the assessment of securitymaturity in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Amethod for assessing the security maturity of an organization mayinclude steps of receiving onboarding inputs, including a list of datasources, a list of jurisdictions where the organization may have abusiness interest, and a list of use cases as shown at block 1102,collecting data using custom rules from a plurality of data sources ofthe list of data sources as shown at block 1104, determining use casecoverage by the plurality of data sources by referring to a contentlibrary as shown at block 1106, determining a criticality score for eachof the plurality of data sources as shown at block 1108 based on one ormore use cases covered by each of the plurality of data sources,calculating data source coverage and asset collection coverage based onthe data received and the list of data sources as shown at block 1110and determining a security maturity score of the organization using amaturity score model that is a function of above parameters as shown atblock 1112. In an embodiment, the maturity score model may be a functionof the data source coverage, the asset collection coverage, the use casecoverage, the criticality score associated with each of the plurality ofdata sources, and asset coverage by each of the plurality of datasources. The method may further include steps of estimating compliancecoverage of the organization based on actual compliance by IT resourcesof the organization located in each of the plurality of jurisdictionsagainst respective compliance frameworks.

FIG. 11B is a flow diagram illustrating the benchmarking of securitymaturity score and recommending security improvement measures inaccordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The method mayfurther include steps of identifying a plurality of data sources or usecases of the list of data sources and use cases as shown at block 1152,projecting improvement of the security maturity score of theorganization as each of the data sources and use cases are activated asshown at block 1154, benchmarking the security maturity score withrespect to one or more benchmarks as shown at block 1156 identifyingsecurity gaps of the organization based on the benchmarking as shown atblock 1158 and recommending one or more security improvement measuresbased on the identified security gaps as shown at block 1160.

FIG. 12 is an example dashboard illustrating a maturity score of theorganization and maturity score against each of the individualattributes in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Auser can access the dashboard 1200 to see the potential maturity scoreand live maturity score of an organization. The user may track thematurity score against each component through the dashboard 1200. Theinterface 1200 shows a potential maturity score through a meteredrepresentation 1202, wherein the potential maturity score encompassesall compartments calculations and showcases the maturity score in onecentralized location. The potential maturity score 1202 showcases theactual score vs. potential score components if a customer is planning onadding data sources in the future and has not yet started activelycollecting those data sources. The interface 1200 may show scorebreakdown 1204 for different compartments and display collection score,use cases score, and coverage score.

The system may generate security recommendation 1206, such as add CASB,add network, and add firewall and present the recommendation through theinterface 1200. The recommendations 1206 demonstrates the top datasource recommendations as outputs based on the maturity model and gapsin an organization's security operations visibility. The interface 1200may present a maturity score leaderboard 1208 to show the comparativeindustry vertical maturity score for baselining maturity against peerorganizations. The interface 1200 provides to a user to check itsorganization's maturity score and compare it against the industryaverages. A user through interface 1200 may initiate calculation of theactual maturity score of the organization based active data sources byclicking the button 1210. Once a user has modeled all data sources fortheir organization, they can then “request my actual score” through theinterface 1210. On click of the button 1208, the system startscollecting, storing, and analyzing the maturity score and can providethe actual score vs. the potential score through the dashboard. In anembodiment, when the actual score if received from the scoring engines,the output provided may match the collection scope for a new customerand validates their overall scope.

FIG. 13 illustrates a list of industries against which one can benchmarktheir security operations maturity in accordance with an embodiment ofthe present disclosure. FIG. 13 lists NAICS codes for IndustrySelection. A user can select through an interactive user interface oneor more industries and compare against baseline maturity scores of theirorganization against recommended maturity scores of the one or moreindustries.

FIG. 14 illustrates an example scoring engine compartments used toassess security maturity in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure. As shown in FIG. 14, scoring engine compartments such asdata source selection, use case coverage, and asset collection coverageare used to determine the overall maturity score of any organization. Inan embodiment, the maturity score is calculated separately for eachcompartment. These scores represent the default data sources that thesystem suggests at baseline without any customizations made to thecustomer scoring engine and reflect a potential maturity score untilthese systems are actively collecting data sources. In an embodiment,the system enables customization and planning of potential data sourcesagainst the actual collection, providing a score for both actualcollection and potential score if all data sources are activated.

FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary user interface that allowscustomization of the data source in accordance with an embodiment of thepresent disclosure. The user interface 1500 allows customization of datasource collection and asset coverage. Data sources can be added andremoved using the user interface 1500. In an embodiment, a user can alsodefine the criticality level of each of the data sources. The user mayselect a particular data source from a list of potential data sourcesand activate it for collection.

FIG. 16 illustrates an exemplary computer system in which or with whichembodiments of the present invention may be utilized. Depending upon theparticular implementation, the various process and decision blocksdescribed above may be performed by hardware components, embodied inmachine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause ageneral-purpose or special-purpose processor programmed with theinstructions to perform the steps, or the steps may be performed by acombination of hardware, software, firmware and/or involvement of humanparticipation/interaction. As shown in FIG. 16, the computer systemincludes an external storage device 1610, bus 1620, main memory 1630,read-only memory 1640, mass storage device 1650, communication port1660, and processor 1670.

Those skilled in the art will appreciate computer system 1600 mayinclude more than one processing circuitry 1670 and communication ports1660. Processing circuitry 1670 should be understood to mean circuitrybased on one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signalprocessors, programmable logic devices, field-programmable gate arrays(FPGAs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc., and mayinclude a multi-core processor (e.g., dual-core, quadcore, Hexa-core, orany suitable number of cores) or supercomputer. In some embodiments,processing circuitry 1670 is distributed across multiple separateprocessors or processing units, for example, multiple of the same typeof processing units (e.g., two Intel Core i7 processors) or multipledifferent processors (e.g., an Intel Core i5 processor and an Intel Corei7 processor). Examples of processing circuitry 1670 include, but arenot limited to, an Intel® Itanium® or Itanium 2 processor(s), or AMD®Opteron® or Athlon MP® processor(s), Motorola® lines of processors,System on Chip (SoC) processors or other future processors. Processingcircuitry 1670 may include various modules associated with embodimentsof the present invention.

Communication port 1660 may include a cable modem, integrated servicesdigital network (ISDN) modem, a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem, atelephone modem, an Ethernet card, or a wireless modem forcommunications with other equipment, or any other suitablecommunications circuitry. Such communications may involve the Internetor any other suitable communications networks or paths. In addition,communications circuitry may include circuitry that enables peer-to-peercommunication of electronic devices or communication of electronicdevices in locations remote from each other. Communication port 1660 canbe any of an RS-232 port for use with a modem-based dialup connection, a10/100 Ethernet port, a Gigabit or 10 Gigabit port using copper orfiber, a serial port, a parallel port, or other existing or futureports. Communication port 1660 may be chosen depending on a network,such a Local Area Network (LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), or any networkto which the computer system connects.

Memory 1630 may include Random Access Memory (RAM) or any other dynamicstorage device commonly known in the art. Read-only memory 1640 can beany static storage device(s), e.g., but not limited to, a ProgrammableRead-Only Memory (PROM) chip for storing static information, e.g.,start-up or BIOS instructions for processing circuitry 1670.

Mass storage 1650 may be an electronic storage device. As referred toherein, the phrase “electronic storage device” or “storage device”should be understood to mean any device for storing electronic data,computer software, or firmware, such as random-access memory, read-onlymemory, hard drives, optical drives, digital video disc (DVD) recorders,compact disc (CD) recorders, BLU-RAY disc (BD) 10 recorders, BLU-RAY 3Ddisc recorders, digital video recorders (DVRs, sometimes called apersonal video recorder or PVRs), solid-state devices, quantum storagedevices, gaming consoles, gaming media, or any other suitable fixed orremovable storage devices, and/or any combination of the same. Thenon-volatile memory may also be used (e.g., to launch a boot-up routineand other instructions). Cloud-based storage may be used to supplementstorage memory in 1630. Memory 1650 may be any current or future massstorage solution, which can be used to store information and/orinstructions. Exemplary mass storage solutions include, but are notlimited to, Parallel Advanced Technology Attachment (PATA) or SerialAdvanced Technology Attachment (SATA) hard disk drives or solid-statedrives (internal or external, e.g., having Universal Serial Bus (USB)and/or Firmware interfaces), e.g., those available from Seagate (e.g.,the Seagate Barracuda 7200 family) or Hitachi (e.g., the HitachiDeskstar 7K1000), one or more optical discs, Redundant Array ofIndependent Disks (RAID) storage, e.g., an array of disks (e.g., SATAarrays), available from various vendors including Dot Hill SystemsCorp., LaCie, Nexsan Technologies, Inc. and Enhance Technology, Inc.

Bus 1620 communicatively couples processor(s) 1670 with the othermemory, storage, and communication blocks. Bus 1620 can be, e.g., aPeripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)/PCI Extended (PCI-X) bus, SmallComputer System Interface (SCSI), USB, or the like, for connectingexpansion cards, drives, and other subsystems as well as other buses,such a front side bus (FSB), which connects processor 1670 to a softwaresystem.

Optionally, operator and administrative interfaces, e.g., a display,keyboard, and a cursor control device, may also be coupled to bus 1620to support direct operator interaction with computer systems. Otheroperator and administrative interfaces can be provided through networkconnections connected through communication port 1660. An externalstorage device 1210 can be any kind of external hard-drives, floppydrives, IOMEGA® Zip Drives, Compact Disc-Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM),Compact Disc-Rewritable (CD-RW), Digital Video Disk-Read Only Memory(DVD-ROM). The components described above are meant only to exemplifyvarious possibilities. In no way should the aforementioned exemplarycomputer system limit the scope of the present disclosure.

The computer system 1600 may be accessed through a user interface. Theuser interface application may be implemented using any suitablearchitecture. For example, it may be a stand-alone application whollyimplemented on the computer system 1600. The user interfaces applicationand/or any instructions for performing any of the embodiments discussedherein may be encoded on computer-readable media. Computer-readablemedia includes any media capable of storing data. In some embodiments,the user interface application is a client server-based application.Data for use by a thick or thin client implemented on an electronicdevice computer system 1600 is retrieved on-demand by issuing requeststo a server remote to the computer system 1600. For example, computerdevice 1600 may receive inputs from the user via an input interface andtransmit those inputs to the remote server for processing and generatingthe corresponding outputs. The generated output is then transmitted tothe computer device 1600 for presentation to the user.

While embodiments of the present invention have been illustrated anddescribed, it will be clear that the invention is not limited to theseembodiments only. Numerous modifications, changes, variations,substitutions, and equivalents will be apparent to those skilled in theart without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention, asdescribed in the claims.

Thus, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art thatthe diagrams, schematics, illustrations, and the like representconceptual views or processes illustrating systems and methods embodyingthis invention. The functions of the various elements shown in thefigures may be provided through the use of dedicated hardware as well ashardware capable of executing associated software. Similarly, anyswitches shown in the figures are conceptual only. Their function may becarried out through the operation of program logic, through dedicatedlogic, through the interaction of program control and dedicated logic,or even manually, the particular technique being selectable by theentity implementing this invention. Those of ordinary skill in the artfurther understand that the exemplary hardware, software, processes,methods, and/or operating systems described herein are for illustrativepurposes and, thus, are not intended to be limited to any particularname.

As used herein, and unless the context dictates otherwise, the term“coupled to” is intended to include both direct coupling (in which twoelements that are coupled to each other contact each other) and indirectcoupling (in which at least one additional element is located betweenthe two elements). Therefore, the terms “coupled to” and “coupled with”are used synonymously. Within the context of this document terms“coupled to” and “coupled with” are also used euphemistically to mean“communicatively coupled with” over a network, where two or more devicesare able to exchange data with each other over the network, possibly viaone or more intermediary devices.

It should be apparent to those skilled in the art that many moremodifications besides those already described are possible withoutdeparting from the inventive concepts herein. The inventive subjectmatter, therefore, is not to be restricted except in the spirit of theappended claims. Moreover, in interpreting both the specification andthe claims, all terms should be interpreted in the broadest possiblemanner consistent with the context. In particular, the terms “comprises”and “comprising” should be interpreted as referring to elements,components, or steps in a non-exclusive manner, indicating that thereferenced elements, components, or steps may be present, or utilized,or combined with other elements, components, or steps that are notexpressly referenced. Where the specification claims refer to at leastone of something selected from the group consisting of A, B, C . . . andN, the text should be interpreted as requiring only one element from thegroup, not A plus N, or B plus N, etc.

While the foregoing describes various embodiments of the invention,other and further embodiments of the invention may be devised withoutdeparting from the basic scope thereof. The scope of the invention isdetermined by the claims that follow. The invention is not limited tothe described embodiments, versions, or examples, which are included toenable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make and use theinvention when combined with information and knowledge available to theperson having ordinary skill in the art.

The foregoing description of embodiments is provided to enable anyperson skilled in the art to make and use the subject matter. Variousmodifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to thoseskilled in the art, and the novel principles and subject matterdisclosed herein may be applied to other embodiments without the use ofthe innovative faculty. The claimed subject matter set forth in theclaims is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown herein butis to be accorded to the widest score consistent with the principles andnovel features disclosed herein. It is contemplated that additionalembodiments are within the spirit and true scope of the disclosedsubject matter.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of assessing security operationvisibility and monitoring capabilities of an organization, the methodcomprising: receiving, at a computing device, a list of a plurality ofdata sources associated with the organization, a list of a plurality ofjurisdictions where the organization has a business interest, and a listof a plurality of security feature use cases, the plurality of datasources including at least one of a network device or an applicationassociated with the network device, each security feature use case ofthe plurality of security feature use cases indicating a scenario inwhich security features of a data source of the plurality of datasources are used; collecting, at the computing device, data using customrules from a plurality of active data sources from the plurality of datasources, the plurality of active data sources being a subset of theplurality of data sources that enable data collection capabilities;determining, by the computing device and based on the data, securityfeature use case coverage indicating a percentage of a number of a setof security feature use cases covered by the plurality of active datasources out of a number of the plurality of security feature use cases;determining, by the computing device and using a machine learning model,a criticality score for each active data source of the plurality ofactive data sources from a plurality of criticality scores based on oneor more security feature use cases covered by that active data sourcefrom the set of security feature use cases; calculating, by thecomputing device and based on the data, data source coverage indicatinga percentage of a number of the plurality of active data sources out ofa number of the plurality of data sources and asset collection coverageindicating a percentage of a number of jurisdictions from which theplurality of active data sources are located out of a number of theplurality of jurisdictions; determining, by the computing device, asecurity operation maturity score of the organization using a maturityscore model, wherein the security operation maturity score is indicativeof security operation visibility and monitoring capability and thematurity score model is a function of the data source coverage, theasset collection coverage, the security feature use case coverage, andthe criticality score associated with each active data source of theplurality of active data sources; and causing the computer device todisplay through an interactive user interface the determined securityoperation maturity score of the organization.
 2. The method of claim 1,further comprising: estimating, by the computing device, compliancecoverage of the organization based on actual compliance by I.T.resources of the organization located in each jurisdiction of theplurality of jurisdictions against respective compliance frameworks. 3.The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data sources includesdata center resources, internal network resources, cloudinfrastructures, and software as a Service (SaaS) services.
 4. Themethod of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the computingdevice, the plurality of active data sources of the list of plurality ofdata sources; and projecting, by the computing device, improvement ofthe security operation maturity score of the organization as each datasource of the plurality of data sources is added to the plurality ofactive data sources.
 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:benchmarking, by the computing device, the security operation maturityscore with respect to one or more benchmarks.
 6. The method of claim 5,further comprising: determining a potential security operation maturityscore considering the plurality of data sources being all active datasources and using the maturity score model, the one or more benchmarkincluding the potential security operation maturity score.
 7. The methodof claim 5, wherein the one or more benchmarks comprises at least one of(1) a security operation maturity score of a similar organization, (2) asecurity operation maturity score of an industry related to theorganization, a security operation maturity score of a state, or (4) asecurity operation maturity score of a nation.
 8. The method of claim 5,further comprising: identifying, by the computing device, security gapsof the organization based on the benchmarking.
 9. The method of claim 5,further comprising: identifying, by the computing device, security gapsof the organization based on the benchmarking; and determining, by thecomputing device, one or more security improvement measurerecommendations based on the identified security gaps.
 10. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the criticality score of each active data source of theplurality of active data sources is a weighted criticality score of theone or more security feature use cases covered by that active datasource, wherein the weighted criticality score is determined using ahistorically developed criticality score matrix.
 11. The method of claim2, wherein the compliance frameworks comprise MITRE ATT&CK, Center forthe Internet (C.I.S.) Benchmark, Lockheed Killchain, and NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cyber Security Framework(CSF).
 12. A system for assessing security operation visibility andmonitoring capabilities of an organization, the system comprising: aninput receiving module configured to receive a list of a plurality ofdata sources, a list of a plurality of jurisdictions where theorganization has a business interest, and a list of a plurality ofsecurity feature use cases, the plurality of data sources including atleast one of a network device or an application associated with thenetwork device, each security feature use case of the plurality ofsecurity feature use cases indicating a scenario in which securityfeatures of a data source of the plurality of data sources are used; alog collection module configured to collect logs from a plurality ofactive data sources of the plurality of data sources; a use casecoverage determination module configured to determine, based on thelogs, use case coverage indicating a percentage of a number of a set ofsecurity feature use cases covered by the plurality of active datasources out of a number of the plurality of security feature use cases;a criticality score determination module configured to determine, usinga machine learning model, a criticality score for each data source ofthe plurality of active data sources from a plurality of criticalityscores based on one or more security feature use cases covered by thatactive data source; a log source coverage calculation module configuredto calculate, based on the logs, log source coverage indicating apercentage of a number of the plurality of active data sources out of anumber of the plurality of data sources; an asset collection coveragedetermination module configured to determine asset collection coverageindicating a percentage of a number of jurisdictions from which theplurality of active data sources are located out of a number of theplurality of jurisdictions; and a security maturity determination moduleconfigured to determine a security operation maturity score of theorganization using a maturity score model, wherein the securityoperation maturity score is indicative of security operation visibilityand monitoring capability and the maturity score model is a function ofthe log source coverage, the asset collection coverage, the use casecoverage, and the criticality score associated with each active datasource of the plurality of active data sources.
 13. The system of claim12 further comprises a compliance coverage estimation module configuredto estimate compliance coverage of the organization based on actualcompliance by I.T. resources of the organization located in eachjurisdiction of the plurality of jurisdictions against respectivecompliance frameworks.
 14. The system of claim 12, wherein the pluralityof data sources comprises data center resources, internal networkresources, cloud infrastructures, and software as a Service (SaaS)services.
 15. The system of claim 12 further comprises a security scoreprojection module configured to identify the plurality of active datasources of the plurality of data sources and project improvement of thesecurity operation maturity score of the organization as each of theplurality of data sources is added to the plurality of active datasources.
 16. The system of claim 12 further comprises a benchmarkingmodule configured to benchmark the security operation maturity scorewith respect to one or more benchmarks.
 17. The system of claim 16,further comprises: a benchmarking module configured to determine apotential security operation maturity score considering the plurality ofdata sources being all active data sources and using the maturity scoremodel, the one or more benchmark including the potential securityoperation maturity score.
 18. The system of claim 16, wherein the one ormore benchmarks comprises at least one of (1) a security operationmaturity score of a similar organization, (2) a security operationmaturity score of an industry related to the organization, (3) asecurity operation maturity score of a state, or (4) a securityoperation maturity score of a nation.
 19. The system of claim 16 furthercomprises a security gap identification module configured to identifysecurity gaps of the organization based on benchmarking of the securityoperation maturity score with respect to the one or more benchmarks. 20.The system of claim 16 further comprises: a security gap identificationmodule configured to identify security gaps of the organization based onbenchmarking of the security operation maturity score with respect tothe one or more benchmarks; and a recommendation module configured torecommend one or more security improvement measures based on theidentified security gaps.
 21. The system of claim 12, wherein thecriticality score of each active data source of the plurality of activedata sources is a weighted criticality score of the one or more securityfeature use cases covered by each active data source of the plurality ofactive data sources, wherein the weighted criticality score isdetermined using a historically developed criticality score matrix. 22.The system of claim 13, wherein the compliance frameworks comprise MITREATT&CK, Center for the Internet (C.I.S.) Benchmark, Lockheed Killchain,and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cyber SecurityFramework (CSF).